Dr. Siegel, about asthma, have you seen this study and what do you think of it ?
Cigarette smoking and allergic sensitization: A 32-year population-based cohort study
http://www.jacionline.org/articl...019549/
abstract
The conclusion is: Personal and parental smoking is associated with a reduced risk of allergic sensitization in people with a family history of atopy.
Isn't it true that most asthmatic children come from atopic parents and if so, perhaps this can explain why asthma rates have increased proportionately with the decrease of smoking?
Thank you, Doc!
You realize of course that this means I lose the argument to Roy, and will have to endure intense gloating.
But I can live with it 
Thanks again.
Hi Dr. Siegel,
I am a policy communicator on issues related to tobacco control, tax issues and so on.
Is there any study shown that there is little to non correlation between high tobacco price and smuggling? or how high tobacco prices efficiently balance the tobacco sales and youth smoking?
Thanks,
Julie
Julie Chung wrote:
"Is there any study shown that there is little to non correlation between high tobacco price and smuggling?"
Not interested in studies that show correlation?
Never fear, Julie. Somebody somewhere will pull something wonderful out of a cocked hat showing no correlation between prices and smuggling. And also, while they're up, that liquor Prohibition also didn't correlate with smuggling. All you have to do is ignore common sense, your own experience, the newspaper headlines and the historical record, and you can easily find proof for anything you like.
Similary, Doc, you can also rest easy. It's just a matter of minutes before "sufficient" evidence is found that secondhand smoke causes absolutely every evil on the planet and endangers polar bears.
And never mind that 78% of endangered bears aren't ever exposed to smoke and are nonetheless endangered. Somewhere there's an epidemiological meta-analysis that mathematically concludes there's a weak and statistically insignificant correlation between endangerment and smoke among the 7 or 8 bears who once floated beside a ship where a sailor was having a smoke. Repace has concluded that the smoke from that Marlboro clouded the whole arctic and was actually heavier 2 miles out than it was on the friggin frigate. And that, I assure you, is going to be "sufficient."
:
Julie no study beats timeline observation. The Canadian experiebce is a glimpse of the future for America. The extreme taxation drove smuggling to a point the police begged legislators to lower the prices because enforcement was beyond their resource capacity to keep pace with. In 1996 they reluctantly complied.
The level of community ignoring the law and purchasing non taxed cigarettes reached such a level, by reducing the taxation to compete with street pricing, they actually increased tax revenues by drastically lowering the taxes.
Currently the taxation has again reached record levels which this time out has attracted much more competition in underground marketeers, the price is now lower than we have seen in 40 years.
Once again, decisions to recoup lost taxes and reduce the cost of enforcement will have to be considered.
Extreme tax levels producing a package of cigarettes above the ten dollar a package level resulted in a significant market growth among youth smokers. Which defies the logic; by increasing pricing it will result in a decrease among young smokers.
Sometimes taking the word of over confident drama queens, is not as efficient as actually doing the research. A connection to the smokers being targeted in amicable solutions allowing the time it takes to foster change within a reasonable time line, will likely be found to be much more efficient than the ratcheting up of abuse, as a solution which in reality only fosters increased opposition.
It's scary that they think that if they tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth. There was a recent radio talk show that The MPP took part in, and they quoted these statements.
I asked about the 23 times statement that is in the press release on that radio program. They ignored the fact that this quote is from a newspaper article and I couldn't be shown the "study", and pawned me off to the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit to "find many other studies" (with no guarantee that this "proof" that was the proof that is the proof when you know to see the proof). * You will notice that they ignored that they are said to be basing this proposed legislation on one piece of "science" by newspaper (no actual study, even in the Ontario medical study bibliography -just the newspaper quote); although that "science" may not exist.
BTW The situation of ability to question "charities" isn't "new" (just different), you may want to read this 1996 report that had physicians for a smoke free Canada put under the microscope and lack of accountability; that still persists in many charity organizations today.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/f...les/
bryden1.htm
* A Canadian politician used this same statement once when talking to the press, and is used when people talk in circles to make you forget the question, but supposedly answering the question. Canadian Comedy, eh?? Pity 
Use and misuse of epidemiology:
All of the studies reviewed suffer from important methodologic limitations that hinder both the interpretation of each study individually and the comparison of results across studies. Despite the fact that most epidemiologic studies have observed a positive association [... fill in your own presumed cause and effect], we conclude that the evidence must be considered to be equivocal, given the biases likely present and the fact that most of the potential biases would tend to overestimate any association. - http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....ers-
latest.html
Clue: this time it's not SHS, it's caffeine.
Julie Chung,
I find your question interesting. Do you know or work with a guy named Chris?
An article in the New York Times today might interest some of you. It is an article on the smog in China, athletes, especially athletes with asthma and the problems they may encounter during the Olympics. The one sentence that really stood out for me was, "Vehicle emissions, coal-fueled factories and construction sites in and around Beijing generate the high level of air pollution." Notice that there was no mention of secondhand smoke or the high volume of Chinese smokers. I also found it interesting that people who suffers from asthma are capable of being Olympic style athletes. Though I think it is wonderful and I envy their abilities, I can't help but wonder why they are able to compete in triathelons, yet a book worm will drop dead at the sight of a cigarette. Brainwashing from infancy perhaps?
http://www,nytimes.com/2008/01/2....html?th&
emc=th
"It became fashionable as a result of fraudulent promotional claims spread by advocates with prestigious medical credentials and positions of authority."
Sound familiar?
http://
junkfoodscience.blogspot....lobotomist.html
.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch printed an article today about the harm done to business by the Columbia smoking ban. Utopian enthusiasm for Clean Air Laws is beginning to lessen here in St. Louis:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday...60?
OpenDocument
I think this new realism is partly due to Dr. Siegel's campaign for scientific accuracy.
Bill;
Considering the alternative view. Examine the moral values displayed in the following link. Somehow considering the ad agency use of children by the campaign for Tobacco Free Kids I find an eerie similarity in strategies. Is it just me?
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/...ives/
190811.php
"I'm sure that this Palestinian mother didn't want to desecrate the body of her murdered son. But if she didn't put on this display, she'd probably be labeled a collaborater herself. And she may have other children. Sad."
I know the threads discussing Hippocrates have passed but this one is a gem.
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/
c...eally_wants.php
Doctor Siegel, - "I don't know why the Canadian anti-smoking groups need to follow the U.S. groups' pattern of exaggerating and misrepresenting the scientific evidence. That's one thing I don't want to see us export to other countries."
They do it, because it works.
Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public stay informed through the sound-bites that are bought and paid for on network news.
Think of the "average person" and consider how they're "adequately" informed.
A reminder to take all meta-analysis with a healthy degree of skepticism.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...ll/315/7109/
629
GreatScot
Julie,
Please visit http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/
t...taxandteen.html
I compared states with high cig taxes and states with low cig tazes, and found no corellation whith teen-use. I also cite a study by the state of california which found no corellation.
Doc, ...I think the problem is that the groups who make these fallicious claims are run by scientificly inept people....we've discussed this before.
dave K
Just found the cause of those 220 bartender deaths in Boston.....notice anything familiar in this? I'll bet this is the real culprit around the world too.
Dirty Air Poses Threat To Boston Commuters
BOSTON (WBZ) ― There's a health concern for commuters driving into Boston that has little to do with speed or road rage.
The problem is in the air.
The problem lies with diesel fumes pouring out of vehicles, and it's taking a toll on our health.
"It's getting into the bloodstream. It's causing heart attacks. It's causing premature deaths all across Massachusetts," said Danielle Connor of Clean Water Action.
The problem comes from tiny particles in the fumes that we breathe in. Dr. Bruce Hill of the Clean Air Task Rorce has measured diesel pollution on Boston roadways, including the southeast expressway.
"We found the levels were roughly four times higher in your car than in the downtown area at the same time," Hill said.
http://wbztv.com/local/
boston.di...r.2.632621.html
Like the stocks, no?
"Bright Ideas
"Michael Windisch, proprietor of the Maltermeister Turm restaurant in Goslar, Lower Saxony, Germany, solved what has become a crisis for other restaurants since the state extended a smoking ban in August. Windisch opened three holes in an outer wall so that, in cold weather, a smoker need not venture outside but can stick his head and arms through the holes and puff away while remaining inside (according to a December report in Der Spiegel)."
.
My advice for TC on rewriting the rules of demand and supply would be to use recall bias. For example, if I were to take a random sample of my non-smoking friends, I would find that not one of them would recall buying cheap cigarettes abroad for me and I can not recall paying them. The fact that I can not recall any change in this situation, as the cost of legal cigarettes increases, is proof enough that the black market can not operate in a world dominated by the wisdom of TC.
Tomorrow I shall teach my grand mother how to suck an egg.
She likes eggs.
Dr Siegel wrote
"I don't know why the Canadian anti-smoking groups need to follow the U.S. groups' pattern of exaggerating and misrepresenting the scientific evidence. That's one thing I don't want to see us export to other countries."
Too late!! I posted this before Dr but maybe you missed it?
There are two websites here who seem to be in competition to see which one can come up with the highest figures for deaths due to passive smoking.
19,000 or 69,000 for Europe. Take your pick. Here's the two sites in question.
http://en.help-eu.com/pages/lsv-
...AVIEZ_VOUS.html
Get the language used on this one. "Most of these victims are poisoned at home" Poisoned???
http://www.smokefreepartnership....reen-10-
reasons
Maybe you could contact them and point out the staggering differences between the figures?
The comment by David Orazietti (that Mike criticized as unethical and irresponsible) appears accurate, as the quote never stated that childhood exposures to tobacco smoke pollution always caused the clinical diagnosis of those disease prior to the child's 18th birthday.
This becomes obvious if one simply replaces the words "second hand smoke" with "smoking" (in the quote attributed to Orazietti), as smokers who become addicted as children also are at greater risk for those same diseases than are people who begin smoking as adults.
Virtually all chronic diseases begin during childhood and are clinically diagnosed after the children are adults (often after much of the damage has already occurred).
Michael;
I believe you will have to start presenting awards for the biggest bucket of malarkey.
Here is my nomination;
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Met...ro/
1033410.html
"There’s evidence to suggest that second-hand smoke can be every bit as harmful outdoors as inside, she said."
""We all know that kids pick up and eat anything, and if a child eats three cigarette butts . . . the protocol is that they have to go to the emergency room because they could have increased heart rate or seizures," she said."
Your post should read; in Canada the lunatics are firmly in control of the asylum.
Bill;
No disrespect;
"Virtually all chronic diseases begin during childhood"
Can you explain or provide some evidence?
This one seems pretty hard to comprehend.
If virtually all chronic diseases start in childhood and few children smoke through the majority of childhood, are you saying smoking related diseases actually start before most start smoking?
Clearly children do not become addicted to ETS during childhood which makes this response entirely puzzling as well.
"This becomes obvious if one simply replaces the words "second hand smoke" with "smoking" (in the quote attributed to Orazietti), as smokers who become addicted as children also are at greater risk for those same diseases than are people who begin smoking as adults."
Smoking and exposure to smoke are clearly two separate situations and should not be confused.
Equating the dangers, simply allows smokers distrust of all medical advice to grow, with no answer to the question; why quit when the damage is already done?
Kevin,
I caught that one too. I picture Bill sitting on daddy's lap, sucking in all that secondhand smoke and that explains why his explanations and wording are so hazy! Give me a break! No actually continue talking that talk, it only makes more normal people see how ridiculous you are!
Bill G., - "Virtually all chronic diseases begin during childhood"
I can only guess that you don't allow adults to review your posts before you click "publish", but it sounded plausible didn't it?
Always interested in seeing/hearing what goes on inside the minds of antis.
Amazing
.
Higlander: In your link http://en.help-eu.com/pages/lsv-
...AVIEZ_VOUS.html
open the Executive Summary to find two surprising statements on the first page:
- Passive smoking at work appeared to account for over 7,000 deaths across the EU in 2002, while passive smoking at home appeared to cause a further 72,000 deaths. Among employees of the hospitality industry, exposure to tobacco smoke at work accounts for one death every working day.
- Passive smoking at work appeared to account for over 2,800 deaths of non-smokers in the EU in 2002, while exposure at home appeared to cause a further 16,600 deaths of non-smokers. In the hospitality industry in the EU, passive smoking apparently kills one non-smoking employee every 3.5 working days.
It seems they can't even get their figures right.
Sunz
It is turning into something of a hobby for me.
Either Bill has swallowed too much of his chew that he's not supposed to swallow OR he's smoking some funky weed.
Bill, you really need to clarify your "chronic diseases" and direct us to where this proof is, please.
I've never heard this crap before.
On a similar theme
"So I think it is time to revisit 'epidemiology' as practiced by Doll and his partner in crime Peto. It seems that no matter how many times this stuff is deconstructed as biassed research, it is still quoted by organisations that unthinkingly regurgitate the same old party line. The problem being that self perceived'experts' tend to uncritically accept as truth anything published by their 'peers' - so the contagion renews itself and spreads around the world"
Don't know who these people are, but the information checks out.
A long read but worth it.
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/
My last comment was here, no it's gone, within less than 2 minutes.
... now it's gone ...
Radioactive tobacco
"Tobacco smokers can also use this information to avoid radioactive brands of tobacco. American Spirit is one of a few companies that offers an organic line of cigarettes, and organic cigars are also available from a few companies. You can also grow your own tobacco, which is surprisingly easy and fun"
http://www.acsa2000.net/
HealthAl...ve_tobacco.html
WebMD
Experts do not yet know what causes leukemia.
A risk factor is anything that raises your chance of getting a disease. Risk factors for some types of leukemia include
Smoking and tobacco use.
Being exposed to large amounts of radiation.
Being exposed to certain chemicals in the workplace.
Past chemotherapy or radiation for another cancer. (This is rare, and not all chemotherapies raise your leukemia risk.)
Most people who get leukemia do not have any risk factors.
Phosphate fertilizer is made from Apatite
Apatite is not radioactive
http://webmineral.com/data/Apatite.shtml
Genuine Q:
If Most people who get leukemia do not have any risk factors, then how is it possible to attribute the risk of leukemia to "tobacco use"? Especially since "most people" don't smoke?
Note: I know WHY it's possible, just not HOW.
:
Walt
Baffles me, but a risk doesn't really need to be proved as it may never happen.
The science is so messed up after 70 years of misinformation for a noble cause, I doubt that anyone really knows.
Even the beagles and rats won't cooperate
http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap9.htm
Walt's question/comment is worth repeating since I noticed the same thing and had the exact same reaction:
If Most people who get leukemia do not have any risk factors, then how is it possible to attribute the risk of leukemia to "tobacco use"? Especially since "most people" don't smoke?
Note: I know WHY it's possible, just not HOW.
"If Most people who get leukemia do not have any risk factors, then how is it possible to attribute the risk of leukemia to "tobacco use"? Especially since "most people" don't smoke?"
Care to take a stabb at that one Doctor?
Rose;
Apatite is definitely not the concern. If you read your last link concerning Dolls assessments and the following links you might be a little apprehensive about your drinking water and the human experimentation factor. Also the real reason people have radon in their basements and why those living closest to highways have significantly higher lung cancer rates.
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/
teno...fertilizer.html
http://www.commondreams.org/view...s02/0819-
06.htm
http://www.earthisland.org/
eijou...phosphates.html
Lots more here;
http://www.google.ca/search?q=ph...lient=firefox-
a
I would really like to hear Michael's opinion in respect to this one.
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/
"Almost all the cases which have so far reached court have, like cases brought by others suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS), floundered on two medical, legal and scientific arguments. First, that it cannot be "proved" that exposure to apparently toxic chemicals can cause long-term and ongoing systemic damage to health. Secondly, that any damage caused by chemicals is relative, dependent first upon their method and duration of use, and second upon the susceptibility of the injured party. In this way the chemical company is defended and the sufferer blamed for having a weak constitution.
One question raised by these issues is why the medical research establishment and the State have allowed a confused, unscientific and sometimes almost mystical appraisal of the risk of cigarette smoking to entirely shape the public policy debate over cancer? Why have so many research scientists in developed societies and particularly in Britain, refused to investigate the chemical causes of cancer, despite their increasingly telling effect upon the epidemiological picture of cancer, ill-health and philosophy of Sir Richard Doll emerges as a convincing guide and marker to changing perceptions and modalities."
Bill Godshall says:
"Virtually all chronic diseases begin during childhood"
I can beat that: All deaths begin at conception.
"and are clinically diagnosed after the children are adults (often after much of the damage has already occurred)."
How do they know they began during childhood if they're not diagnosed at that time?
TC used to claim a goal of protecting workers. Now apparently loosing interest, they moved on to protecting children with the majority of workers still waiting.
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...i_76285452/
pg_1
Come on James, you know the answer.
Smoke causes every ill in the world, you don't need proof, just belief.
I have heard that Bill G is campaigning for a restraining order, banning Mother Nature from starting fires and ordering all volcanoes to be forcibly shut down.
GreatScot
From Kevin's link
"Today, to read the truth about chemicals and health in the workplace, you have to read one of the few independent scientists "
sound familiar?
GS;
From Roses link;
"From a Friend of the People to a Friend of the Powerful
What lessons can be drawn from the career of Sir Richard Doll? How can we explain, in particular, his and other research scientists' failure to appraise seriously the subject of cancer and the environment?
Today nearly all the major institutions of scientific research which study the effect of chemicals and other toxins on health are financed, managed, supported or aided, by chemical and pharmaceutical companies. As a result it is increasingly difficult to find independent scientists within the area of environmental health. Those academics who fight the corner for sufferers of chemically induced illnesses are an eclectic grouping of medical clinicians, social scientists, philanthropists and community activists. They have, however, one thing in common: they lack funding and have on the whole been prised away from real power."
Only Tobacco money is dirty???
If the research is flawed and their billion dollar a year product makes you sick. No worries, they can sell you medicines from their 50 billion dollar a year business to cure what ails you. If the injury is chronic all that much better, your purchases will keep their tax sheltered charity foundation's stock market investments viable for decades.
One born every minute refers to all of us.
http://www.townhall.com/columnis.../
tyranny_update
~snip~
"You say, "Williams, you must be mad. All that would never happen." That's the same charge one might have made back in the '60s, when the anti-tobacco movement started, if someone predicted that the day would come when some cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., would outlaw smoking on public streets. Back in the '60s, had someone predicted that there'd be bans on restaurants serving foie gras; citations for driving without a seatbelt, that the government said would be unnecessary if cars had airbags; and school bans on kids having peanut butter sandwiches in their lunchbox, I'm sure people would have said that would never happen."
" Their agenda is far more achievable using techniques dear to all tyrants: There's less resistance if liberty is taken away a little bit at a time"
Is this real?
"It does look as if it's the cancers that are principally caused by hormones that are not affected by smoking. Most of the other cancers throughout the body are induced by exposure to chemicals, often environmental ones" (6
. This retraction, countless cases of avoidable cancers and deaths late, has been ignored by cancer establishments worldwide"
http://hell.unsaccodicanapa.com/
...al_cancers.html
Walt
Having thought a little more about your question, hows this?
I have noticed that the Doctor seems to believe that smoke damages the immune system.
Though I am happy for him to correct me, this seems like received wisdom, and I doubt that any large scale tests have been done.
It does put me in mind of -
Tobacco was opposed by racial hygienists fearing the corruption of the German "germ plasm" (i.e., genetic material), by industrial hygienists fearing a reduction of people's capacity to work
Tobacco was said to be a "corrupting force in a rotting civilization that has become lazy."
In other words,despite all evidence to the contary, smokers are weak!
Now if tobacco smoke makes you weak wether it is primary or secondhand smoke, you will be susceptible to any illness going, therefore all the illnesses you might suffer are "caused" by tobacco smoke weakening your immune system.
Does that answer your question?
Kevin
The Camelford Water Incident
"Water supplies to 20,000 people in and around Camelford were contaminated when aluminium sulphate, (A very toxic chemical) was tipped into the wrong treatment tank at the Lowermoor works"
http://www.northcornwall.org/cam...er-
incident.htm
D.4.3 Low Level Radiation Effects
"The ability of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation to produce
cancer in virtually every tissue and organ in laboratory animals has been well-demonstrated. The
development of cancer is not an immediate effect. Radiation-induced leukemia has the shortest latent
period at 2 years, while other radiation induced cancers have latent periods >20 years."
Wonderful opinion piece from Wisconsin:
http://www.wiscnews.com/bnr/opin.../opinion/
269171
TC Math Busted
I join you Gilster in a BRAVO for Pamela Head!
Now for the truely divisive bound to divide the group.
GO GIANTS!!!!
And once again we have the editorial board from the Withita Eagle with this:
"Why have they done so? Because they understand the deadly cost of secondhand smoke. And they realize that business rights shouldn't include poisoning the air that employees and customers breathe"
http://www.kansas.com/611/story/...ory/
291321.html
Sunz,
Go Pats!!!
~just trying to level the playing field~
To illustrate my point on perception
Here we have
Cigarettes 'could double MS risk'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
3218403.stm
Followed by
Smoking Does Not Affect Progression in MS
http://www.medscape.com/viewarti.../563936?
src=rss
But previously we read
Carbon monoxide may protect against MS symptoms
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...s-
symptoms.html
So from previous consensus thinking, we see the smoker with MS and conclude that their smoking might have contributed to their illness.
Someone else thinks its just a coincidence
But from the last article we may conclude that the person with MS is unknowingly self treating.
But that is unhelpful to previous dogma as it might imply that tobacco is a herbal medicine or at least useful in some way.
Here you go Rose:
No smoking around your pets
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....es/
5484091.html
Now we have 'dog'ooderism!!
Sunz,
no depth of emotional pressure to low for these fanatics. ETS associated with lung cancer in dogs? Someone better tell the research beagles to get with the program and start developing cancer soon.
My friend's cat is 22 and a very heavy second hand smoker, a bit incontinent but still going. Another friend's dog is 18 and another heavy second hand smoker.
My wife's first 2 cats died at 13, in a 100% non-smoking household, perhaps we condemned them to an early death by not smoking? Our last cat was put down at 15 due to kidney failure, second hand smoke or high protein diet?
Basically a load of crap but as we know both in the USA and here in the UK there are loads of people who care more for animals than they do for human beings. I suppose I can now look forward to being banned from keeping pets or risk a letter bomb from the crazy animal rights fanatics.
GreatScot
From Sunz's link: "We all know that secondhand tobacco smoke is bad for people, but ongoing research indicates that it poses health risks to pets as well."
The very first line of the article.
Wouldn't this be much more "truthful" if it read:
"We've all now been thoroughly indoctrinated into believing that secondhand tobacco smoke is bad for people, despite a mountain of evidence demonstrating widespread fraud, misrepresentation, exaggeration of fact, and outright lies about the impact and effects of this relatively annoying but immediately harmless bi-product of firsthand smoking, but ongoing research of the same or similar low quality designed specifically to scare pet owners into submission, indicates that it poses health risks to pets as well."
This would be much more to the point.
Interesting. I know 2 people with MS. One is a cousin of mine; the other a friend. Both are NON-smokers.
I'm so fed up with everything being blamed on smoking just because they are too damned lazy to do any real research that might actually help people.
And loved that pet piece, posted a comment there.....hehehehehe
German ex-chancellor accused of flouting smoking ban
http://uk.reuters.com/article/od...yenough&
sp=true
Excerpts
German anti-smoking activists are trying to bring charges against 89-year-old former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and his wife for breaking a new smoking ban in Hamburg, the group said on Friday.
"They were recklessly smoking in public and someone like Mr Schmidt should know better -- he is setting a very bad example, so we launched legal proceedings," activist Horst Keiser told Reuters
He reported them to the Hamburg authorities for personal injury and for breaking the new anti-smoking law.
Recklessly smoking in public? Personal injury?
GreatScot
Sunz;
http://www.kansas.com/611/story/...ory/
291321.html
"The reality is that states and cities across the country have approved smoking restrictions -- including many in the Midwest and West that are passionate about property rights.
Why have they done so? Because they understand the deadly cost of secondhand smoke. And they realize that business rights shouldn't include poisoning the air that employees and customers breathe."
To the editor;
I take issue with the statement;
"Why have they done so? Because they understand the deadly cost of secondhand smoke. And they realize that business rights shouldn't include poisoning the air that employees and customers breathe."
These States fell to the values of paternalism, backed by some entirely questionable Junk science presented in the form of High drama. The kind we see everyday in targeted media promotional campaigns. Not as a public awareness or grassroots movement but a movement decidedly top down. A public compliance with targeted hatred, promoted as a deliberate campaign strategy connected with a smoking treaty at the somewhat less than credible United Nations.
When we hear the cheers of anti smoker advocates who succeeded in lowering the percentage of smokers; what we should hear is they have succeeded in torturing people to the point of compliance. Hardly an accomplishment by normal values, off the bandwagon.
Second hand smoke in the quantities encountered in normal life could not by any stretch of credible science or common sense create even a minuscule amount of the devastation claimed by the largely Phara lobby enthusiasts. In fact the most credible research of case control studies; the largest and longest, all share consistent findings no significant effects were ever found.
After 40 years of trying we find one irrefutable proof no cancer has ever been produced by painting rats with amounts of tobacco smoke which exceeded the inhalation of the most enthusiastic of smokers by 200 times.
Who could after all possibly be more affected by any effects of tobacco smoke than a smoker?
Contrast that with the billions or trillions of radioactive doses with a half life of 50,000 years floating around our environment. Radiation molecules provided by years of nuclear testing and that risk is 100% of rats exposed to minuscule dosages all developed lung cancers and leukemia.
When they put the smoke exposed test rats in with the radiation exposed rats after similar dosages were applied, more than 60% of them survived and did not suffer lung cancers or Lukemia.
Even Lucy couldn't splain that one. Although the scientists did their best to portray her antics in what they did offer.
The media bears a lot of responsibility for taking out the trash and is, by the number of bans already implemented, taking on a role of xenophobic executioners who deal out their daily dose of hatred and exclusions to their sanctioned targets.
All the while the suckers of this world fall prey to promises of donations seeking the cures for disease while the charities are using those funds selling dramatic media presentations designed to blame the victims for their failure to find those cures.
For the Pharma and oil companies who control virtually all of scientific research it remains the same old game. Only Tobacco money is dirty???
If the research is flawed and their billion dollar a year product makes you sick. No worries, they can sell you medicines from their 50 billion dollar a year business to cure what ails you. If the injury is chronic all that much better, your purchases will keep their tax sheltered charity foundation's stock market investments viable for decades.
One born every minute refers to all of us.
Cures of course would make individual choice to use a legal product, much less damaging and certainly much less expensive than creating theatrical productions for the next 50 years, spinning webs.
With the alarming growth of incidence of so called smoking related diseases, why has the media held secret from the public for so long the fact although smoking has declined significantly in population percentages; the actual number of smokers has not changed significantly for over 50 years, only population has changed? Perhaps when the time for judging the facts finally arrives this one fact which cloaks the lies of the anti smoking movement, will be the one which convicts the media groups, who participated gleefully in one of the largest monetary and murderous fraud campaigns in world history.
For every falsely assessed cause of mortality or chronic disease the real cause is being ignored. Now that the surgeon general has declared the discussion over, how many will die while hazards of Diesel fuels and radiation or fluoridation of our drinking water continues.
All under the watchful eye of our protectors in news rooms and ad agencies currently dispensing all the health relevant information of what is safe and what is not. With financial markets as opposed to mortality and morbidity numbers as the main indicator of Public Health.
GreatScot,
My pets had a similar history to yours. If re-incarnation is the deal when we pass, I want to come back as one of my pets!!! What a soft spot to land in.
It wasn't that long ago those who would normally be opposed to abortions were won over by drama in supporting a woman's right to choose. I vividly remember the media portrayals of teen age girls and coat hangers being used by veterinary students. Of back room and underground abortions. Surprisingly though to my recollection no one was ever arrested or charged, although there was no doubt, it happened all the time. Why would anyone lie about such an issue? Movies and night time soap created the bulk of the drama which convince the judiciary; personal choice was the best avenue to defend.
Today many will hold with their principles and challenge anyone who questions the wisdom of abortion.
Not being in the position of facing a surprise pregnancy I have to wonder though, how many if left to their own devices actually take the abortion choice? and how do they feel after, regardless of political opinion. How does it make a woman feel? Is it relief or confusion?
This morning as I watched our local version of breakfast TV on the baton Network; Canada AM. They first reported a story about a casino which inadvertently paid out to a number of winners, too much cash, and they sought to invoke personal moral values to encourage the people to bring the money back.
The news anchors all playfully mocked the casino request aligning them with the majority of public sentiment; for a casino which makes hundreds of millions every year, the 20 odd thousand lost was nothing and the moral compass of many would side with letting them keep the money.
The next presentation on the roster now that we are all comfy and aligned with our announcers sentiments, was a lot less humorous, although the presentation failed to show it.
A cheerful representative of a Bio-lab informed us of a momentous discovery. A new genome mutation had been created with a much longer strand than the human genome. They talked about this creation in all joyful terms; where it would lead in the discovery of cures cheaper fuel sources and a host of joyful dreams including of course longer life for all of us.
They quickly associated all opposition to their work as faith based organizations. Just like TC and the omnipotent demon Tobacco Industry. The impression did not divulge; The church does not have a license or patent on moral integrity. They are not playing god, as much as playing Frankenstein.
What they had created of course was a new life form and if it included all of the human genes and a number of additions it may well prove to be a superior more durable species the problem lies with communication between species and the tendency of dominance is to attain a dominant position. What have they created? even they haven't the slightest clue, until they liven it.
The announcer suggested we won't know if they never animate the species to which the guest said quickly and matter of fact, they would be doing so soon. He went on to express his belief if such a creation was produced using exclusively public funds, there was no problem with it's creators holding the patents for it's discovery although he was pretty short in the details of his moral misinterpretations of ownership.
Cancers can be seen as numerous damaged genes with random damages being replicated to produce identical damaged replications as we see in tumors although so far can not explain.
Or they can be seen as genome strand damage from a single common source strand replicating over years at predictably accelerating rates [Double Double] which accelerate toward critical mass. Which as we would expect more logically would produce visually consistent tumors.
The loss of gene 21 from the strand produces down syndrome the loss or addition of genes are consistent with strand damages found in tumors. Which into themselves are another species invading the human life form. When we play with strands we never know what will evolve, all we know is it will be consistently represented according to the consistency of the genetic material supplied.
What they don't tell us is potentially much more dangerous than what they do.
If Public Health are right and ventilation strategies offer no protection, in containing the so called dangers of ETS, how do we feel so confident whatever is in that lab, will remain contained in that lab, at least long enough to understand what it is?
Lets hope they are wrong, at least as far as our mechanical containment abilities.
Basically a load of crap but as we know both in the USA and here in the UK there are loads of people who care more for animals than they do for human beings.
Or they say they can. Pets can't speak up against emotional blackmail.
Given the number of pets that have to be put down in shelters, any government- or charity-encouraged restrictions against smokers adopting pets would be horrendous.
It would put charities that rely on fear(ACS, ALA, etc.) up against charities where people contribute their own time and emotion to help pets find a home. Disgusting.
But I guess it is another way to emotionally blackmail smokers.
Cats don't need us.
They don't need to be fed, they love to hunt.
We have never tamed them, they choose to fit in with our ways, which are similar to their own in terms of hierarchy.
The only thing we've got that they haven't is mastery of fire.
It is speculated that they first joined us in the caves, to share the warmth.
They are probably not good eating and they do kill the mice, so we were happy to let them stay.
If the cats don't care about woodsmoke/coal smoke/tobacco smoke, why should anyone interfere with the mutual arrangements of many centuries?
Incidentally I have 2 cats , one 20 years old, the other 13 and they are both in perfect health.
Andrew,
You are right about the pet adoption point. Same can be said of the foster care system. Smokers are increasingly not permitted to take in youngsters simply because they smoke. Making an perfectly horrid situation for these youngsters much more disgusting.
.
Haven't been here is a long time ... nothing has changed. I was waiting for this opportunity. Dr. Siegel says this:
Even among heavy active smokers, heart disease does not generally develop until a person reaches their 40's. It generally takes at least 20 years of exposure before someone who starts smoking during childhood will develop heart disease. We almost never see cases of heart disease among young people that are due to tobacco smoke exposure, even among individuals who are active smokers who started smoking at a very early age.
OK Doctor - here's your chance. The NY Health department ran several anti smoker ads. One a while ago shows the removed, cut-open clogged artery of a "30 year old smoker". The latest one shows a guy who lost his foot due to blood clots - had a heart attach at 28, stroke at 29 ... says "all this was from smokin". These ads are clearly trying to say that the consequences of smoking for young people are deadly and disabling. Additionally, no other contributing factors are discussed, just smoking.
OK - can you please just say it - that these ads are patently false? Or are you going to say "well, they aren't technically inaccurate because there could be a very very rare chance...."
Maybe I'll stop by again in a few months...take care.
FYI: The Humane Society in NYC won't come out and say that smokers can't adopt but will simply put you at the bottom of every list and never show you an animal if the Adoption Warden so much as suspects you might be a smoker. Better cats and dogs should be endlessly kept in cages or sent to the ovens. So, yes, this crap has already arrived at the animal shelters.
http://
dennisprager.townhall.com...epublican_today
~snip~
9. "Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools."
Response: Many conservatives and more than a few liberals argue that climate change has occurred throughout the earth's history, that carbon emission is therefore not the primary cause of the minimal warming that is taking place, and that the manmade-global warming-will-lead-to-worldwide-destruction scenario is therefore a form of hysteria -- as were the left's cries about heterosexual AIDS in America, the threat to mankind's future if people have more than one child, and breast implants, among many others. As for tobacco and cancer, no mainstream Republican argues that tobacco's link to cancer is junk science. The charge is deceitful. But many conservatives do believe that banning all outdoor smoking, for example, is both scientifically and morally indefensible. And few Republicans argue for Creationism in schools, but many do argue that, in addition to whatever science is taught, the idea that the universe was designed and all of existence is therefore not a random purposeless event might be both scientific and beneficial to students.
FYI~
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateo...2008/
index.html
Commenting by HaloScan
